Many thanks to Melissa Evans for bringing urgently needed attention to the issue of pharmacy syringe sales in California (“L.A. falls behind in needle exchange,” Tuesday).

I wish, however, that the article had mentioned how critical it is for California to now pass Senate Bill 1029, the bill by Sen. Leland Yee which would allow this lifesaving program to continue and thrive throughout the state. In light of California’s economic crisis and the resulting dismantling of our HIV/AIDS and social services infrastructure, programs like this that cost taxpayers nothing and prevent the spread of costly blood-borne diseases must now be given our full consideration.

From 2006 through 2008, I was privileged to help implement the pharmacy syringe sales program in Los Angeles County. My own unscientific research, as well as anecdotal reports, from over 100 pharmacists and program customers suggested well over 100,000 syringes had been sold in Los Angeles County in 2008. Evans’ story refers to research showing just 5,000 syringes had been sold in 2007. The difference is largely due to the enormous promotion the program received in 2008.

Barriers such as county delays in implementation reduce the effectiveness of the program and need to be addressed. County- or city-level political reluctance or apathy should not play a role in determining which areas will benefit from proven, highly effective public health measures to reduce the incidence of HIV and hepatitis C infections. This program has been effective by any definition and must be allowed to continue and to reach as many Californians as possible.

– Meghan Ralston

Harm reduction coordinator,

Drug Policy Alliance

Los Angeles

Elias should check Prop. 13 facts

This is in response to the July 8 column “Needed fix for Prop. 13 is finally getting a serious look,” by Thomas D. Elias.

Whether a columnist views Proposition 13 as the taxpayers’ savior or evil incarnate, any column on the matter should be fact-based and accurate. Elias’ recent piece was neither. First, Elias alleges that Proposition 13 has “never been amended and may never be.” Not true. In fact, Proposition 13 was amended as recently as last month, when Californians voted to exempt seismic retrofits from being considered as “new construction” that triggers reassessment.

The columnist also writes that Assembly Bill 2492, which alters the definition of “change in ownership” for purposes of property tax reassessment, “should not need the two-thirds majority that would be required to amend Proposition 13 itself.”

The nonpartisan legislative counsel says the bill “would result in a change in state taxes for the purpose of increasing state revenues within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of two-thirds of the membership of each house of the Legislature.”

Third, while it is true that the definition of a “change in ownership” was not part of the original initiative, and was set by the Legislature after Proposition 13’s passage, it is not true that this definition was designed to benefit business. The task force that was assembled to make recommendations to implement Proposition 13 originally recommended that no change in ownership of real property should occur if a corporation that owned the property changed hands, as the title still would be in the original corporation’s name. The “change in ownership” definition was put in place by the Legislature to make sure that real property owned by a corporation would be reassessed when the corporation changed hands.

Finally, Elias derides Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association for offering no evidence that AB 2492 “represents the early phase of a drive to kill Proposition 13 altogether.” Elias need do nothing more than review the press conference where the author of the bill said AB 2492 is the first step in his effort to “nuke” Proposition 13.

– Teresa Casazza

President, California Taxpayers’ Association

Whitman’s spending is misplaced

I recently made a donation to Adopt-A-Class.com, specifically designating a local kindergarten teacher as the recipient, since she lamented the fact that she had no crayons for her students.

Imagine, then, how mad I get when those Meg Whitman commercials run continually, reminding me that she is spending $150 million to buy the governorship of California.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.